Who cares what the U.N. thinks
Create Post
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Super Moderator Platinum Member Mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    10,235
    Credits
    9,021
    Savings
    0

    Who cares what the U.N. thinks

    GENEVA (Reuters) - A decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to pardon two army officers accused of war crimes and restore the rank of a third sends a disturbing signal to militaries, a U.N. rights spokesman said on Tuesday, adding he was "very concerned" at the move.
    The White House decision last week involves officers accused of war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the alleged killings of civilians. Trump has previously acknowledged that pardons would be controversial but said they were justified because they had been treated "unfairly".
    "In the present cases no circumstances have been advanced to suggest anything other than simply voiding an otherwise proper process...," United Nations human rights spokesman Rupert Colville told journalists in Geneva on Tuesday, adding that the failure to investigate and prosecute war crimes was itself a violation of international humanitarian law.
    He said that the decision to terminate criminal proceedings in the case of Major Matthew Golsteyn was "particularly troubling as it cuts short the regular judicial process". Golsteyn, an Army Green Beret, was charged with murdering an Afghan man during a 2010 deployment to Afghanistan.
    Most pardons are granted for those already convicted who have served time for a federal offence. But presidents have occasionally granted pardons pre-emptively to individuals accused of or suspected of a crime.
    Colville said he was not aware of pardons of this type since the Vietnam War. "These pardons also send a disturbing signal to militaries all around the world," he added.

    Similar Threads:

  2. #2
    Squad Leader Platinum Member Zulu 36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maitland
    Posts
    6,108
    Credits
    19,493
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    Exactly right. Who cares what the UN thinks.

    What I think that should happen is for fewer lawyers to be involved in military matters, like pre-approving tactical plans as was common in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Another matter I think should be addressed, is a re-vamp of the UCMJ. Chain-of-command involvement in the criminal decision making process needs to be reconsidered.


  3. #3
    good thoughts there, Zulu, BUT when it comes to prosecutions of military personnel, I definitely DO NOT want "civilian involvement"... we don't want or need the kind of garbage that goes on in some civil courts, where "mob rule" is the order of the day. I DO believe that unless it is such an "obvious" case of murder, that combat troops IN A COMBAT ZONE should be given a great deal of latitude... if the troop says he believed the subject was "hostile", that's about it... go back to "free fire zones" in combat areas, where the "rules of engagement" are very, very broad...


  4. #4
    very true, Top, civilians will never understand Military personal, and they can never understand the split-second decision that happens to decide whether to shoot or not and they will never understand that, especially Islamist, can never be trusted and that they will deliberately go into civilian areas and use them to attack us...


  5. #5
    Squad Leader Platinum Member Zulu 36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maitland
    Posts
    6,108
    Credits
    19,493
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    No, I don't want civilians meddling either, although there are civilian judges on the Military Court of Appeals (most are ex-or retired JAG). I also don't want lawyers of any kind dictating to a ground commander whether his plan of attack is legally solid or has "potential war crimes implications."

    Sometimes the rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan were incredibly ridiculous and inflicted by JAG officers, not commanders. Police officers in the US had more deadly force flexibility than troops in a combat zone had sometimes. The US Supreme Court has ruled (more than once), that a police officers use of force decision MUST be based on the information he had available to him at the moment he pulled the trigger. Not what was learned later, no 20-20 hindsight (which was actually the phrase used by the court). Our troops should have no greater standard imposed on them.

    In fact, it needs to be lesser. Don't shoot the women and kids intentionally (unless they're shooting at you), but if they get caught in the middle, oh well. Don't hang around with terrorists and these things won't happen. Or as a friend puts it, "don't go stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things."


  6. #6
    can we get an "AMEN" for Zulu???


  7. #7
    Super Moderator Platinum Member Mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    10,235
    Credits
    9,021
    Savings
    0
    Amen Chris.....

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	45687326_1970173699715568_4282393929564815360_n.jpg‎
Views:	45
Size:	26.1 KB
ID:	33610  

  8. #8
    Billy, Kommiefornia needs to "embrace Islam", especially since they are "anti-queer" too.... might help with their current "problems"....


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts